Open App →
Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence

Supreme Court of the United States · 1984 · Constitutional Law
Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechTime, Place, or Manner RestrictionsExpressive ConductPublic ForumsFirst Amendmentexpressive conduct

Facts

The National Park Service regulates use of national parks and permits camping only in designated campgrounds; no such campgrounds had been designated in Lafayette Park or the Mall. Its regulations defined camping to include using park land for living accommodations, including sleeping and preparing to sleep, when the circumstances show the area is being used as living accommodation. CCNV obtained a permit to conduct a winter demonstration about homelessness in Lafayette Park and the Mall and to erect symbolic tent cities, but the Park Service denied its request to allow demonstrators to sleep in the tents. CCNV sued, arguing that applying the no-camping rule to bar sleeping violated the First Amendment.

Issue

Whether a National Park Service regulation prohibiting camping, including overnight sleeping as part of living accommodations, violates the First Amendment when applied to bar demonstrators from sleeping in Lafayette Park and the Mall during a demonstration intended to call attention to homelessness.

Rule

A content-neutral restriction on expression is valid as a reasonable time, place, or manner regulation if it is justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, is narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and leaves open ample alternative channels for communication. The same regulation of expressive conduct is also valid under O'Brien when it serves a substantial governmental interest unrelated to suppression of expression and the conduct itself is otherwise subject to regulation.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

  • The court's holding and reasoning
  • Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
  • 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
The City of Boston requires permits for demonstrations in Harbor Green, a heavily visited downtown park. Its rules allow protest signs, leafleting, and symbolic cardboard shelters, but prohibit using the park as a living accommodation, including overnight sleeping and storing bedding, except in designated campgrounds outside the city center. A housing-rights group receives a permit for a weekend protest and argues that sleeping in the shelters is essential to its message about eviction.

If the group challenges the sleeping prohibition under the First Amendment, which is the strongest argument for upholding the rule?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, even assuming the prohibited sleeping has some expressive component, a content-neutral ban on using park land for living accommodations may be upheld as a reasonable time, place, or manner regulation if it is justified without reference to message, narrowly serves a significant governmental interest such as preserving the park and keeping it available, and leaves open ample alternative channels. The government need not permit every expressive element demonstrators prefer.